THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 04.03.2015 the petitioner along with his daughter was proceeding on his motor bike bearing No.AP-25-H-1476 and when he reached near Gandhari at about 12:00 noon, one Jeep bearing No.AP-07-X- 0433 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motor bike of the petitioner in opposite direction, as a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy, and from there he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He incurred huge expenses, and thus sought a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured-petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the Jeep was having valid driving license and that it is insured with respondent No.2 and so it is only the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation if any.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured. They contended that the driver of the crime vehicle/Jeep was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.AP-07-X-0433 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what amount quantum and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 4 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,04,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, present appeal is preferred by the claimant.

9. Heard the submission of Sri Naveen Souda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Krishna Mallojhala, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount as compensation and that it failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective. He further submitted that though the petitioner was admitted in a Government Hospital, he incurred huge expenditure on the attendant charges, transportation and other incidental expenses. He further argued that after getting discharged from Gandhi Hospital the petitioner underwent treatment in a private hospital which is established by the evidence of PW2 and that the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure for the treatment of his injuries. He therefore, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that there is no proof of income filed by the petitioner and that the medical bills are also not filed. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation. ?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

4. To what relief? 13. Point No.1:

a) The case of PW1 is that he used to do agriculture and that he also used to sell vegetables and milk an